NOS. 00-16401 & 00-16403

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

____________________

A&M RECORDS, INC., et al.

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NAPSTER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.____________________

JERRY LEIBER, individually and d/b/a JERRY LEIBER MUSIC, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NAPSTER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.____________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

____________________

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE____________________

DAVID O. CARSON DAVID W. OGDEN General Counsel Assistant Attorney General

J. KENT DUNLAP MARK B. STERNSCOTT R. McINTOSH

United States Copyright Office Attorneys, Appellate StaffLibrary of Congress101 Independence Ave. S.E. Civil Division, Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20540 601 D Street N.W., Room 9550

Washington, D.C. 20520ALBIN F. DROST Acting General Counsel Counsel for the United States

JUSTIN HUGHES

United States Patent and Trademark OfficeP.O. Box 15667Arlington, VA 22215

Of Counsel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

STATEMENT OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STATEMENT OF ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B. The Present Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

SECTION 1008 OF THE AUDIO HOME RECORDING ACT OF 1992DOES NOT EXCUSE NAPSTER FROM LIABILITY FOR COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. Napster's Immunity Defense Is Foreclosed by the Plain Languageof Section 1008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Napster's Users Are Not Using Any of the "Devices"or "Media" Covered by Section 1008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. Napster's Users Are Not Making "Digital Musical Recordings"or "Analog Musical Recordings" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3. Section 1008 Provides Immunity Only for NoncommercialCopying, Not for Public Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. Section 1008 Does Not Transform Infringing Consumer UsesInto Non-Infringing Ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

-ii-

B. Napster's Reliance on Section 1008 Is Inconsistent With the PoliciesUnderlying the AHRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1. Napster's Invocation of Section 1008 Upsets the Quid Pro Quothat Underlies the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2. Section 1008 Was Not Intended To Immunize All ConsumerCopying of Musical Recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3. The Legislative History of Statutes Other Than the AHRAIs Irrelevant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

C. Diamond Multimedia Does Not Resolve the AHRA ImmunityQuestion At Issue in this Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

NOS. 00-16401 & 00-16403

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

____________________

A&M RECORDS, INC., et al.

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NAPSTER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.____________________

JERRY LEIBER, individually and d/b/a JERRY LEIBER MUSIC, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NAPSTER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.____________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

____________________

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE____________________

The United States submits this brief as an amicus curiae, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 517 and Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, to

-2-

address the effect of the immunity provision of the Audio Home Recording Act of

1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008.

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

The United States Copyright Office is charged by statute with the responsibility

to provide Congress, federal agencies, and the courts with "information and assistance

* * * on national and international issues relating to copyright * * * ." 17 U.S.C.

§ 701(b)(1)-(2). The United States Patent and Trademark Office is charged with

advising the President and all federal agencies “on matters of intellectual property

policy in the United States * * * ." 35 U.S.C. § 2(b). Consistent with these statutory

provisions, the United States participates as an amicus curiae to provide courts with

the views of the federal government, including the Copyright Office and the Patent

and Trademark Office, regarding significant copyright and other intellectual property

issues.

Although this case presents a number of important issues, one issue in

particular implicates the roles of the Copyright Office and the Patent and Trademark

Office – the operation and effect of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992

("AHRA" or "Act"). The Copyright Office plays a central role in the administration

of the Act. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 1003(b)-(c), 1005, 1007, 1009(e). Moreover, the

Copyright Office and the Patent and Trademark Office provided Congress with

-3-

advice and assistance during the legislative deliberations leading to the enactment of

the Act. For these reasons, the United States believes that the government's views

regarding the scope and application of the Act's immunity provision may assist the

Court in the resolution of that issue.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Whether Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C.

§ 1008, excuses Napster from liability for copyright infringement.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992

The Audio Home Recording Act is Congress's response to a controversy

between the music industry and the consumer electronics industry regarding the

introduction of digital audio recording technology into the domestic consumer

market. The Act represents an effort to resolve that controversy through a carefully

developed and finely balanced legislative compromise. See generally H.R. Rep. No.

873(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 11-13 (1992) ("House Report"), reprinted in 1992 U.S.

Code Cong. & Admin. News ("USCCAN") 3581-3583; S. Rep. No. 294, 102d Cong.,

2d Sess. 30-45 (1992) ("Senate Report").

Beginning in the 1980s, consumer electronics firms began to develop tape

recorders and other consumer recording devices that employ digital audio recording

-4-

technology. Unlike traditional analog recording technology, which results in

perceptible differences between the source material and the copy, digital recording

technology permits consumers to make copies of recorded music that are identical to

the original recording. Moreover, a digital copy can itself be copied without any

degradation of sound quality, opening the door to so-called "serial copying" – making

multiple generations of copies, each identical to the original source.

The capability of digital audio recording technology to produce perfect copies

of recorded music made the technology attractive to the consumer electronics

industry, which anticipated substantial consumer demand for tape recorders and other

recording devices equipped with digital recording technology. However, the same

capability was a source of concern to the music industry, which feared that the

introduction of digital audio recording technology would lead to a vast expansion of

"home taping" of copyrighted sound recordings and a corresponding loss of sales.

When digital audio recording technology first became available for the

consumer market, the legality of home taping of copyrighted sound recordings was

a subject of ongoing controversy between the music industry and the consumer

electronics industry. See House Report at 11-12, reprinted in 1992 USCCAN at

3581-3582; Senate Report at 31. In Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464

U.S. 417 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the use of VCR recording technology

-5-

by consumers to make home copies of broadcast programs for viewing at another time

("time-shifting") constituted a non-infringing "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

The consumer electronics industry, together with consumer groups, argued that Sony

recognized a general right to engage in home taping of copyrighted materials for

personal use; the music industry argued that Sony was decided on narrow grounds and

did not give the Court's general imprimatur to home taping.

In 1990, music publishers and songwriters filed a class action suit for copyright

infringement against Sony Corporation, which had begun to market DAT (Digital

Audio Tape) recorders. During the course of the litigation, negotiations were

undertaken to develop a general non-judicial solution to the digital audio recording

controversy. The recording industry, recording artists, songwriters, music publishers,

the consumer electronics industry, and consumer groups all participated in the

negotiations. Senate Report at 33 & n.16.

The negotiations culminated in 1991 in a compromise agreement among the

interested parties, which was presented to Congress as the basis for legislation. The

AHRA embodies the essential terms of that compromise. See House Report at 13,

reprinted in 1992 USCCAN at 3583; Senate Report at 33-34. The compromise

involves a basic quid pro quo between the music industry on the one hand and the

consumer electronics industry and consumers on the other.

-6-

The AHRA provides the music industry with two principal benefits relating to

digital audio recording technology. First, the Act requires manufacturers of "digital

audio recording devices" to incorporate circuitry that prevents serial copying.

17 U.S.C. §§ 1001(11), 1002. Second, the Act requires manufacturers of "digital

audio recording devices" and "digital audio recording media" to pay prescribed

royalties into a fund that is distributed to copyright holders. Id. §§ 1003-1007. The

royalty payment system is administered by the Copyright Office. Id. §§ 1005, 1007.

In exchange for these benefits, the AHRA provides manufacturers and

consumers with prescribed statutory immunity from suits for copyright infringement.

This immunity is contained in Section 1008 of the Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1008, which

provides:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement ofcopyright [1] based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution ofa digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, ananalog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or [2] basedon the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or mediumfor making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

By its terms, Section 1008 disallows two kinds of actions for copyright

infringement. The first are actions "based on the manufacture, importation, or

distribution" of the specified recording devices and recording media. The second are

actions "based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium

-7-

for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." Section 1008

bars any action for copyright infringement "under this title" – Title 17 of the United

States Code – based on these activities.

B. The Present Litigation

In December 1999, the plaintiffs brought this action for copyright infringement

against Napster in the Northern District of California. Napster is a centralized service

that greatly simplifies and expands the ability of Internet users to copy MP3 music

files from other persons' computers. It does so by providing a "virtual meeting place"

where an individual user of the Napster system can find MP3 music files on the hard

drive of other computers participating, at that moment, in the Napster "community."

Napster then facilities the direct "peer-to-peer" copying and transfer of those files.

In general terms, the plaintiffs asserted that consumers who use Napster's

Internet-based service and software to exchange sound files containing copyrighted

musical recordings are engaged in copyright infringement and that Napster is liable

for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement.

Napster denied that its users are engaged in infringement or that its own actions

make it liable for contributory or vicarious infringement. In addition, Napster

asserted a number of affirmative defenses. Among those is a defense based on

Section 1008 of the AHRA. Napster argued that the activities of its users are

-8-

immunized by Section 1008 and that, as a consequence, Napster itself cannot be held

liable for contributory or vicarious infringement.

On July 26, 2000, the district court issued an opinion and order granting a

preliminary injunction against Napster. The district court concluded, inter alia, that

Napster's users are engaged in extensive copyright infringement and that Napster is

contributorily and vicariously liable for their actions. The district court dismissed

Section 1008 as "irrelevant to the instant action" because the plaintiffs were not

seeking relief under the AHRA. ER 04266 (Opinion p. 42 n.19).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act does not protect Napster from

the plaintiffs' claims of copyright infringement. Section 1008 was adopted to address

a very different phenomenon – the noncommercial consumer use of digital audio

recording devices, such as DAT tape decks, to perform "home taping" of musical

recordings. Napster's effort to bring itself within the ambit of Section 1008 flouts the

terms of the statute and conflicts with the basic policies of the Act.

1. Section 1008 prohibits actions for copyright infringement based on: (1) the

manufacture, importation, or distribution of "a digital audio recording device, a

digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording

medium"; or (2) "the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium

-9-

for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." Although

Napster insists that the activities of its users are protected by Section 1008, and that

it therefore cannot be held accountable for contributory or vicarious infringement

based on those activities, Napster's defense cannot possibly be squared with the actual

terms of Section 1008.

First, it is undisputed that Napster's users are not using any "device" or

"medium" specified in Section 1008, and Section 1008 applies only to consumer use

of "such a device or medium." Second, when Napster's users create and store copies

of music files on their computers' hard disks, they are not making "digital musical

recordings or analog musical recordings" as those terms are defined in the Act. Third,

Napster's users are engaged not only in copying musical recordings, but also in

distributing such recordings to the public, and Section 1008 immunizes only

noncommercial copying ("noncommercial use * * * for making digital musical

recordings or analog musical recordings"), not public distribution. Fourth, unlike

such copyright provisions as the fair use provision (17 U.S.C. § 107), Section 1008

does not designate any use of copyrighted works as non-infringing; it merely bars

"action[s] * * * alleging infringement" based on such uses. Assuming arguendo that

Napster's users are otherwise engaged in acts of copyright infringement, nothing in

Section 1008 purports to render those actions non-infringing, and hence the claims

-10-

against Napster for contributory and vicarious infringement would remain unaffected

even if Section 1008 did apply to Napster's users.

2. The AHRA was intended by Congress to embody a compromise between

the music industry on the one hand and the consumer electronics industry and

consumer groups on the other. At the heart of that compromise is a quid pro quo: in

exchange for allowing noncommercial consumer use of digital audio recording

technology (Section 1008), the music industry receives financial compensation

(Sections 1003-1007) and protection against serial copying (Section 1002).

Permitting Napster to shelter itself behind Section 1008 would defeat this basic

statutory quid pro quo: Napster's users would be permitted to engage in digital

copying and public distribution of copyrighted works on a scale beggaring anything

Congress could have imagined when it enacted the Act, yet the music industry would

receive nothing in return because the products used by Napster and its users

(computers and hard drives) are unquestionably not subject to the Act's royalty and

serial copying provisions.

Napster asserts that, despite the precision of the language in Section 1008,

Congress actually meant to provide immunity for all noncommercial consumer

copying of music in digital or analog form, whether or not the copying fits within the

terms of Section 1008. Nothing in the legislative history of the Act supports that

1 This brief does not address or express a view regarding any issue in this caseother than the AHRA issue. For purposes of addressing the AHRA issue, the UnitedStates assumes that the plaintiffs have made out an otherwise valid claim forcontributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement against Napster based on the useof Napster's service and software by consumers to exchange computer files containingcopyrighted musical works.

-11-

argument. And nothing in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc., 180 F.3d 1072

(9th Cir. 1999), the decision on which Napster places principal reliance, supports the

argument either. Section 1008 was not at issue in Diamond Multimedia, and nowhere

does the case hold that Section 1008 provides the kind of omnibus immunity for

digital copying that Napster invokes here.

ARGUMENT

SECTION 1008 OF THE AUDIO HOME RECORDING ACT OF 1992DOES NOT EXCUSE NAPSTER FROM LIABILITY FOR

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Napster asserts that Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act provides

its users with immunity from liability for copyright infringement and, in so doing,

relieves Napster itself from any derivative liability for contributory or vicarious

infringement. The district court was correct to reject that defense. Napster's

invocation of Section 1008 is flatly inconsistent with the terms of the statute and the

legislative policies that underlie the AHRA. Accordingly, if Napster is otherwise

liable under the copyright laws, Section 1008 does not relieve Napster of liability.1

We note that one of the amici participating in this appeal is a former Registerof Copyrights, Ralph Oman. As a former Register, Mr. Oman speaks for himself andhis client rather than the Copyright Office.

-12-

A. Napster's Immunity Defense Is Foreclosed by the Plain Language ofSection 1008

"The 'starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute

itself.'" Exxon Mobil Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 217

F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Consumer Product Safety Commission v.

GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980)). Napster's discussion of Section 1008

is notably selective about following this rule. Napster correctly points out that the

introductory language of Section 1008 – "[n]o action may be brought under this title

alleging infringement of copyright" – makes Section 1008 potentially applicable to

any infringement action under Title 17, not just an action under the AHRA itself. But

Napster conspicuously fails to address the remaining language of Section 1008, and

makes no effort to explain how that language can be read to protect Napster's users

or Napster itself.

Napster's reluctance to come to grips with the statutory language is under-

standable, because the activities of Napster's users do not even arguably come within

the terms of the statute. Not only does the language of Section 1008 foreclose

Napster's immunity defense, but it does so in four separate and independent ways.

-13-

Napster's argument thus depends on a wholesale disregard of what Section 1008

actually says.

1. Napster's Users Are Not Using Any of the "Devices" or "Media" Coveredby Section 1008

Section 1008 identifies four specific kinds of products whose manufacture,

distribution, and noncommercial use Congress wished to shield from actions for

copyright infringement. Those products are "[1] a digital audio recording device, [2]

a digital audio recording medium, [3] an analog recording device, or [4] an analog

recording medium." 17 U.S.C. § 1008. Section 1008 prohibits actions for copyright

infringement based on "the manufacture, importation, or distribution" of these four

types of devices and media. Section 1008 also prohibits actions for copyright

infringement based on "the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or

medium" for making digital or analog musical recordings.

Nothing in the language of Section 1008 purports to grant manufacturers,

distributors, or consumers any immunity with respect to products other than the

devices and media specified in Section 1008 itself. To the contrary, if an action for

infringement does not involve the specified devices or media, it falls outside the

scope of Section 1008 altogether. By its terms, Section 1008 protects consumers only

from infringement actions that are based on "noncommercial use * * * of such a

-14-

device or medium" (emphasis added). If an infringement action rests on consumer

use of other products, Section 1008 on its face has no applicability to such an action.

In this case, the plaintiffs' copyright claims are not based on the use of any of

the devices or media covered by the terms of Section 1008. Napster's users exchange

music by using personal computers to locate and transfer files from one computer

hard disk to another. Neither a personal computer nor its hard disk constitutes "a

digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording

device, or an analog recording medium." Napster itself does not suggest otherwise.

The terms "digital audio recording device" and "digital audio recording

medium" are specifically defined in the Act. A "digital audio recording device" is

defined, with exceptions not relevant here, as any machine or device "the digital

recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and

that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use." 17 U.S.C.

§ 1001(3) (emphasis added). A "digital audio recording medium" is defined (again

with inapplicable exceptions) as "any material object * * * that is primarily marketed

or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied

recordings by use of a digital audio recording device." Id. § 1001(4)(A) (emphasis

added).

-15-

This Court has already held that the statutory definition of "digital audio

recording device" does not reach personal computers and their hard drives. RIAA v.

Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999). Although

personal computers are "capable of" making "digital audio copied recordings," neither

they nor their hard drives are "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of"

making such recordings. Ibid. For similar reasons, hard drives fall outside the

statutory definition of "digital audio recording medium," since they are not "primarily

marketed or most commonly used * * * for the purpose of" making such recordings.

Unlike "digital audio recording device" and "digital audio recording medium,"

the terms "analog recording device" and "analog recording medium" are not expressly

defined in the Act. Congress presumably had in mind the analog counterparts to

digital audio recording devices and media – for example, traditional analog tape

decks and analog recording tapes. Whatever the precise scope of these terms,

however, they cannot encompass personal computers and their hard drives, because

computers process and store information in digital rather than analog form. Thus,

Napster users are not even arguably using any of the devices and media referred to

in Section 1008.

-16-

2. Napster's Users Are Not Making "Digital Musical Recordings" Or"Analog Musical Recordings"

Section 1008 protects the noncommercial consumer use of digital and analog

recording devices and media for making "digital musical recordings or analog

musical recordings." 17 U.S.C. § 1008. Even if Napster's users were using the

specified devices or media, they are not making "digital musical recordings" or

"analog musical recordings." Their activities fall outside the scope of Section 1008

for that reason as well.

The Act defines a "digital musical recording" as "a material object * * * in

which are fixed, in a digital recording format, only sounds, and material, statements,

or instructions incidental to those fixed sounds, if any * * * ." 17 U.S.C.

§ 1001(5)(A)(i) (emphasis added). The definition goes on to exclude, among other

things, "a material object * * * in which one or more computer programs are fixed

* * * ." Id. § 1001(5)(B)(ii).

Napster's users copy music files to their computers' hard drives. Hard drives

store data of all kinds, from word processing files to multimedia files, and they

ordinarily store computer programs as well. As a result, hard drives fall outside the

statutory definition of "digital musical recording" in two respects: first, they are not

objects in which "only sounds" are "fixed," and second, they are objects in which

-17-

"one or more computer programs are fixed." See Diamond Multimedia, 180 F.3d at

1076 ("a hard drive is a material object in which one or more programs are fixed;

thus, a hard drive is excluded from the definition of digital musical recordings").

Unlike "digital musical recording," "analog musical recording" is not a defined

term under the Act. However, just as a computer's hard drive cannot be an "analog

recording medium" (see p. 15 supra), neither can it be (or be used to store) an "analog

musical recording," because hard drives store data in digital rather than analog form.

Thus, Napster's users cannot be claimed to be making either "digital musical

recordings" or "analog musical recordings" – and if a consumer is not making a

digital or analog musical recording, the terms of Section 1008 do not provide him

with any immunity.

3. Section 1008 Provides Immunity Only for Noncommercial Copying, Notfor Public Distribution

The Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright a number of distinct legal

rights. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(1)-(5). The most widely known right is the right of

reproduction – the "exclusive right * * * to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies

or phonorecords." Id. § 106(1). However, the Copyright Act also grants the copy-

right holder a separate and distinct right of public distribution – the "exclusive right

-18-

* * * to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by

sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." Id. § 106(3).

The plaintiffs assert not only infringements on the right of reproduction, but

also infringements on the right of public distribution. In the proceedings below,

Napster stated that it has at least 20 million users, all of whom are able to use

Napster's service to access and download music files containing copyrighted sound

recordings. When a Napster user makes the music files on his or her hard drive

available for downloading by other Napster users, he or she is distributing the files

to the public at large. Cf. Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 5 F. Supp.

2d 823, 830-31 (C.D. Cal.1998); Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc., 991

F. Supp. 543, 551 (N.D. Tex. 1997), aff'd mem., 168 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 1999);

Marobie-Fl, Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Fire and Equip. Distributors and Northwest Nexus,

Inc., 983 F. Supp. 1167, 1173 (N.D. Ill. 1997).

To the extent that Napster users are engaged in the distribution of copyrighted

works to the public at large, such activity falls outside the scope of Section 1008.

The language of Section 1008 is directed at uses that infringe on the right of

reproduction, not at uses that infringe on the right of public distribution. By its terms,

Section 1008 only bars infringement actions "based on the noncommercial use" of the

specified products "for making digital musical recordings or analog musical

2 We should not be understood to suggest that every distribution of acopyrighted work, regardless of its scope or attendant circumstances, is necessarilyan infringement of the statutory right of distribution. The right of distributionconferred by 17 U.S.C. § 106(3) is a right of public distribution – the right "todistribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public" (emphasisadded). See 2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright§ 8.11[A] (1999).

-19-

recordings" – in other words, for making copies of the music. Section 1008 makes

no reference, and provides no possible defense, to infringement claims based on the

public distribution of copied works. Thus, even if it were proper to treat the use of

Napster's service for the public dissemination of copyrighted music as a

"noncommercial" consumer use, which is far from clear, it is not the use at which the

terms of Section 1008 are directed – the "making [of] digital musical recordings or

analog musical recordings."2

4. Section 1008 Does Not Transform Infringing Consumer Uses Into Non-Infringing Ones

As the foregoing discussion shows, the language of Section 1008 cannot be

read to encompass the activities of Napster's users. But even if Section 1008 did

apply to Napster's users, it would not provide Napster itself with a defense to liability

for contributory or vicarious infringement. That is because the terms of Section 1008

address only whether consumers can be sued for infringement; nothing in Section

1008 addresses or changes whether they are engaged in infringement.

-20-

When Congress has chosen to make particular uses of copyrighted works non-

infringing, it traditionally has said so expressly. For example, the fair use provision

of the Copyright Act provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work * * * is not an

infringement of copyright." 17 U.S.C. § 107 (emphasis added). Congress has spoken

with equal clarity regarding other uses. See, e.g., id. § 108 ("it is not an infringement

of copyright" for library or archive to reproduce single copies of works under

specified conditions); id. § 110 (specified performances and displays of works "are

not infringements of copyright"); id. § 117 ("it is not an infringement" for owner of

copy of computer program to make an additional copy for, inter alia, archival

purposes).

In contrast, Section 1008 of the AHRA conspicuously does not say that the

activities it describes "are not an infringement of copyright." Instead, Section 1008

provides only that "[n]o action may be brought under this title alleging infringement

of copyright" based on such activities. The legislative record indicates that this

language reflects a deliberate decision by Congress to relieve consumers from the

threat of copyright liability without altering the underlying contours of the copyright

laws or resolving the legal debate over the legality of home taping. In the words of

the Senate Report:

-21-

[S]ection 1002 [now Section 1008] provides only that certain copyrightinfringement actions are precluded. The section does not purport toresolve, nor does it resolve, whether the underlying conduct is or is notinfringement. The committee intends the immunity from lawsuits toprovide full protection against the specified types of copyrightinfringement actions, but it has not addressed the underlying copyrightinfringement issue * * * .

Senate Report at 52 (emphasis added).

Thus, assuming for present purposes that Napster's users are engaged in

copyright infringement, their actions would remain infringing even if Section 1008

were applicable to them, since Section 1008 does not purport to address the

underlying issue of infringement. And if Section 1008 does not transform the

actions of Napster's users into non-infringing uses, then it cannot provide shelter to

Napster itself. In invoking Section 1008, Napster has argued that it cannot be liable

for contributory or vicarious infringement if its users are not themselves engaged

in infringement. Once it is recognized that Section 1008 does not alter whether the

consumer uses that it addresses are infringing, Napster's argument falls apart.

It is noteworthy in this regard that Section 1008 expressly provides immunity

not only for the specified noncommercial consumer use of digital and analog

recording devices and media, but also for the manufacture and distribution of such

products. Napster's argument assumes that the immunity conferred on consumers

is sufficient by itself to preclude liability for contributory or vicarious infringement

-22-

on the part of the firms whose products are being used. But if that were the case,

then there would have been no reason for Congress to include distinct immunity

protection for manufacturers in Section 1008 itself, and the manufacturer immunity

language in Section 1008 would serve no purpose. Napster's argument thus

conflicts with the elementary principle that "legislative enactments should not be

construed to render their provisions mere surplusage." Dunn v. CFTC, 519 U.S. 465,

472 (1997). The fact that Congress found it necessary to extend an express statutory

grant of immunity to manufacturers, as well as to consumers, confirms that

Congress did not regard consumer immunity from suit as sufficient by itself to

insulate other parties from liability for contributory or vicarious infringement.

B. Napster's Reliance on Section 1008 Is Inconsistent With the PoliciesUnderlying the AHRA

In Diamond Multimedia, this Court observed that it "need not resort to the

legislative history [when] the statutory language is clear." 180 F.3d at 1076. Given

the clarity with which the language of Section 1008 prescribes (and circumscribes)

the scope of statutory immunity under the AHRA, and given Napster's manifest

inability to bring this case within the language of the statute, resort to the legislative

history of the AHRA is therefore unnecessary. Nevertheless, if recourse is had to the

legislative history, it reinforces the conclusion that Section 1008 does not protect

-23-

Napster. Far from advancing the policies of the AHRA, Napster's invocation of

Section 1008 is directly contrary to those policies.

1. Napster's Invocation of Section 1008 Upsets the Quid Pro Quo ThatUnderlies the Act

The legislative history of the AHRA makes clear that the Act was intended by

Congress to embody the compromise agreement reached in 1991 between the music

industry on the one hand and the consumer electronics industry and consumer groups

on the other. See, e.g., Senate Report at 34 ("the competing parties have, through

negotiation and compromise, reached an agreement which all parties involved feel is

equitable," and the legislation "reflects this agreement"); House Report at 13,

reprinted in 1992 USCCAN at 3583 (the Act "preserves the essentials of the

agreement").

As explained above, the compromise underlying the Act involves a basic quid

pro quo. In exchange for accepting the marketing of digital audio recording

technology and the use of such technology for noncommercial home taping, the music

industry receives financial compensation (through the Act's royalty system) and

protection against serial copying. This quid pro quo was central to the agreement and

3 As noted above, unlike digital audio recording technology, analog recordingtechnology has inherent limitations that make it substantially less useful for copyingin general and serial copying in particular. For that reason, the Act does not requiremanufacturers of analog recording devices and media to make royalty payments orincorporate anti-serial copying circuitry. The exclusion of analog recording devicesand media from the royalty and serial copying requirements of the Act does not meanthat the statute is not predicated in a quid pro quo. Instead, it simply means that therationale for the quid pro quo is not implicated by analog taping.

-24-

the legislation that embodies it. See, e.g., Senate Report at 30 (summarizing the

purpose and basic elements of the legislation).3

Construing Section 1008 to protect Napster would mean repudiating, rather

than preserving, the quid pro quo underlying the Act. On the one hand, Napster

would be permitted to facilitate the copying and distribution of copyrighted sound

recordings on a scale far surpassing the "home taping" that Congress foresaw when

it enacted the AHRA. On the other hand, the products employed by Napster and its

users – computers and their hard drives -- are not subject to royalty payments (by

Napster or anyone else) and are not required to be equipped with anti-serial copying

circuitry, because the royalty and serial copying provisions of the Act apply only to

"digital audio recording devices" and "digital audio recording media," and as shown

above, those terms exclude computers and hard drives. 17 U.S.C. §§ 1002(a),

1003(a), 1004; see p. 15 supra. As a result, the music industry would bear the

burdens of the statute without receiving the corresponding benefits.

-25-

The legislative history makes clear that the Act's exclusion of computers and

hard drives was the product of a deliberate choice by Congress. See, e.g., Senate

Report at 48 ("a personal computer whose recording function is designed and

marketed primarily for the recording of data and computer programs * * * would

[not] qualify as a 'digital audio recording device'"). In invoking Section 1008,

Napster is inviting this Court to countermand that legislative choice, and to do so in

a way that undoes the reciprocal nature of the Act's digital recording provisions. That

invitation should be declined.

2. Section 1008 Was Not Intended To Immunize All Consumer Copying ofMusical Recordings

Section 1008 identifies with precision the consumer activity that Congress

meant to shelter from copyright infringement suits: "the noncommercial use by a

consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog

musical recordings." 17 U.S.C. § 1008. Despite the precision of this language,

Napster asserts that Congress actually intended to immunize "all noncommercial

consumer copying of music in digital or analog form" (Napster Brief at 20), whether

or not the copying comes within the terms of Section 1008. But Napster has

identified nothing in the limited legislative history of Section 1008 that supports this

argument or overcomes the explicit language of the statute.

-26-

The following passage from the House Report on the Act is representative of

the legislative history regarding Section 1008:

Section 1008 covers one of the critical components of the legislation:exemptions from liability for suit under title 17 for home taping ofcopyrighted musical works and sound recordings, and for contributoryinfringement actions under title 17 against manufacturers, importers, anddistributors of digital and analog recording devices and recording media.In the case of home taping, the exemption protects all noncommercialcopying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings.Manufacturers, importers, and distributors of digital and analogrecording devices and media have a complete exemption from copyrightinfringement claims based on the manufacture, importation, ordistribution of such devices.

House Report at 24, reprinted in 1992 USCCAN at 3594 (emphasis added).

The highlighted references to "home taping" suggest, not surprisingly, that

Congress meant to address the problem that gave rise to the AHRA – the introduction

and use of DAT tape decks and similar digital taping technology (see pp. 3-5 supra).

There is no indication that Congress also meant to cover other kinds of devices and

media that fall outside the terms of Section 1008. To the contrary, the legislative

history reiterates the message conveyed by the language of the statute itself: Congress

meant to "extend[] protection to users of such audio recording devices and media by

prohibiting copyright infringement actions based on the use of such devices and

media" to make musical recordings. Senate Report at 51 (emphasis added). In short,

-27-

the legislative history confirms that Congress meant what it said in Section 1008 –

and what Congress said cannot be reconciled with what Napster is seeking.

3. The Legislative History of Statutes Other Than the AHRA is Irrelevant

In construing the scope of Section 1008, Napster attempts to rely on the

legislative history of two statutes other than the AHRA – the Record Rental

Amendment Act of 1984 and the Computer Software Rental Amendment Act of 1990.

See Napster Brief at 23-24. Napster argues that Congress's treatment of "commercial"

lending of phonorecords and computer software under those two statutes is consistent

with Napster's reading of Section 1008. The short answer is that this case involves

the meaning of the AHRA, not the meaning of other statutes. Napster's invocation

of Section 1008 cannot be sustained on the basis of Section 1008's own language and

legislative history; a fortiori, it cannot be sustained by resort to the language and

legislative history of unrelated statutes. The Record Rental Amendment Act and the

Computer Software Rental Amendment Act were both enacted prior to the AHRA,

and they address entirely different subjects. Neither their language nor their

legislative history purports to address the meaning of Section 1008 in any way.

-28-

C. Diamond Multimedia Does Not Resolve the AHRA Immunity Question AtIssue in This Case

Napster suggests that this Court's decision in Diamond Multimedia confirms

Napster's reading of Section 1008. It does not. The meaning and applicability of

Section 1008 were not at issue in Diamond Multimedia, and nothing that the Court

decided in Diamond Multimedia in any way requires the Court to accept Napster's

Section 1008 defense in this case.

Diamond Multimedia involved a suit under the AHRA by the recording

industry against the manufacturer of the Rio portable music player, a "Walkman-like"

device that plays MP3 music files. The recording industry claimed that the Rio player

is a "digital audio recording device" and therefore is subject to the Act's royalty and

serial copying provisions. Based on that claim, the recording industry sought to

enjoin the manufacture and distribution of the Rio player and to compel Rio's

manufacturer (Diamond) to make royalty payments under the Act. This Court

rejected the industry claim, holding that the Rio player does not come within the Act's

definition of a "digital audio recording device" and therefore is not subject to the

Act's royalty and serial copying requirements. 180 F.3d at 1075-1081.

Diamond Multimedia was not an action for copyright infringement. Because

Section 1008 of the AHRA applies only to "action[s] * * * under this title alleging

-29-

infringement of copyright," it was facially irrelevant to Diamond's liability, and

Diamond never invoked Section 1008 as a defense. Accordingly, the Court was not

called on to decide whether Section 1008 protected Diamond itself, much less

whether or how Section 1008 may protect defendants in other cases that (unlike

Diamond Multimedia) involve claims of copyright infringement.

Napster relies on a single passage from the Court's opinion in Diamond

Multimedia:

As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensurethe right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings ofcopyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home tapingexemption, see 17 U.S.C. § 1008, which "protects all noncommercialcopying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings," H.R.Rep. 102-873(I), at *59.

180 F.3d at 1079 (emphasis in original).

To the extent that this passage speaks to the meaning of Section 1008, it is no

more than dictum, since Section 1008 was not at issue in the case. In any event,

nothing in the passage is in any way inconsistent with the proposition that Section

1008 means what it says. The passage merely quotes excerpts from the House and

Senate Reports regarding the purpose of the Act in general and Section 1008 in

particular. As shown above, when the legislative history is considered in its entirety,

it directly supports, rather than refutes, the conclusion that Section 1008 does not

-30-

protect Napster or its users. Accordingly, nothing in Diamond Multimedia provides

refuge for Napster in this case.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's holding that Section 1008 of the

Audio Home Recording Act does not excuse Napster from liability is correct and

should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID O. CARSON DAVID W. OGDEN General Counsel Assistant Attorney General

J. KENT DUNLAP MARK B. STERNSCOTT R. McINTOSH

United States Copyright Office Attorneys, Appellate StaffLibrary of Congress101 Independence Ave. S.E. Civil Division, Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20540 601 D Street N.W., Room 9550

Washington, D.C. 20520ALBIN F. DROST Acting General Counsel Counsel for the United States

JUSTIN HUGHES

United States Patent and Trademark OfficeP.O. Box 15667Arlington, VA 22215

Of Counsel

September 8, 2000

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(d)and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, I certify that the

attached amicus brief is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more

and contains 7000 words or less.

_________________________Scott R. McIntosh

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 8, 2000, I filed and served the foregoing BRIEF

FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE by causing an original and 15

copies to be filed with the Clerk of the Court by overnight mail and by causing copies

to be served on the following counsel by overnight mail and (where indicated) by fax:

Carey R. RamosAidan SynnottMichael KeatsPaul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison1285 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10019-6064(212) 373-3000(OVERNIGHT MAIL AND FAX)

Russell J. FrackmanJeffrey D. GoldmanGeorge M. BorkowskiDrew E. BreuderMitchell Silberberg & Knupp11377 W Olympic BlvdLos Angeles, CA 90064(310) 312-2000(OVERNIGHT MAIL AND FAX)

William M. HartEric J. GermanFrank P. SchibiliaCarla M. MillerHank L. GoldsmithLeon P. GoldLawrence L. WeinsteinProskauer Rose LLP1585 BroadwayNew York, NY 10036(212) 969-3000

Hadrian R. Katz(202) 942-5000Arnold & Porter555 Twelfth Street, NWWashington, DC 20004

Steven B. Fabrizio1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Suite 300Washington, DC 20036202-775-0101

Lisa M. ArentMelinda M. MortonMichael A. BrilleSamuel A. KaplanWilliam JacksonSeth A. GoldbergFenwick & West LLPTwo Palo Alto Sq Ste 800Palo Alto, CA 94306650-494-0600(BY OVERNIGHT MAIL AND FAX)

Laurence F. PulgramKathryn J. FritzFenwick & West LLP275 Battery Street15th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111415-875-2300(BY OVERNIGHT MAIL AND FAX)

David BoiesBoies Schiller & Flexner LLP80 Business Park DriveSuite 110Armonk, NY 10504(914) 273-9800(BY OVERNIGHT MAIL AND FAX)

Albert P. BedecarreQuinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver &Hedges, LLP2479 East Bayshore RoadSuite 820Palo Alto, CA 94303650-494-3900

Hannah Bentley394 Scenic AvenueSan Anselmo, CA 94960

_________________________Scott R. McIntosh